MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896942665 · doi:10.1101/440735

Minimal phenotyping yields GWAS hits of reduced specificity for major depression

2018· preprint· en· W2896942665 on OpenAlexaff
Na Cai, Joana Revez, Mark J. Adams, Till F. M. Andlauer, Gerome Breen, Enda M. Byrne, Toni‐Kim Clarke, Andreas J. Forstner, Hans J. Grabe, Steven P. Hamilton, Douglas F. Levinson, Cathryn M. Lewis, Glyn Lewis, Nicholas G. Martin, Yuri Milaneschi, Ole Mors, Bertram Müller‐Myhsok, Brenda W. J. H. Pennix, Roy H. Perlis, Giorgio Pistis, James B. Potash, Martin Preisig, Jianxin Shi, Jordan W. Smoller, Fabien Streit, Henning Tiemeier, Rudolf Uher, Sandra Van der Auwera, Alexander Viktorin, Myrna M. Weissman, Kenneth S. Kendler, Jonathan Flint

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthChinese Society of Clinical OncologyUniversity of OxfordSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungEuropean Bioinformatics InstituteGlaxoSmithKlineJohn Templeton FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMajor depressive disorderGenome-wide association studyNeuroticismDepression (economics)TraitHeritabilityPsychologyGenetic associationClinical psychologyPsychiatrySingle-nucleotide polymorphismGeneticsPersonalityGenotypeBiologyMoodGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Minimal phenotyping refers to the reliance on the use of a small number of self-report items for disease case identification. This strategy has been applied to genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of major depressive disorder (MDD). Here we report that the genotype derived heritability (h 2 SNP ) of depression defined by minimal phenotyping (14%, SE = 0.8%) is lower than strictly defined MDD (26%, SE = 2.2%). This cannot be explained by differences in prevalence between definitions or including cases of lower liability to MDD in minimal phenotyping definitions of depression, but can be explained by misdiagnosis of those without depression or with related conditions as cases of depression. Depression defined by minimal phenotyping is as genetically correlated with strictly defined MDD (rG = 0.81, SE = 0.03) as it is with the personality trait neuroticism (rG = 0.84, SE = 0.05), a trait not defined by the cardinal symptoms of depression. While they both show similar shared genetic liability with neuroticism, a greater proportion of the genome contributes to the minimal phenotyping definitions of depression (80.2%, SE = 0.6%) than to strictly defined MDD (65.8%, SE = 0.6%). We find that GWAS loci identified in minimal phenotyping definitions of depression are not specific to MDD: they also predispose to other psychiatric conditions. Finally, while highly predictive polygenic risk scores can be generated from minimal phenotyping definitions of MDD, the predictive power can be explained entirely by the sample size used to generate the polygenic risk score, rather than specificity for MDD. Our results reveal that genetic analysis of minimal phenotyping definitions of depression identifies non-specific genetic factors shared between MDD and other psychiatric conditions. Reliance on results from minimal phenotyping for MDD may thus bias views of the genetic architecture of MDD and may impede our ability to identify pathways specific to MDD.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207